| For
Immediate Release
May 22, 2006 |
Contact:
South
Dakotans Oppose Big Stone Plant Saint Paul, MN...South Dakotans and their regional allies strongly oppose the proposed Big Stone II power plant because a better alternative, wind turbines, would produce more jobs and more income in the state than the coal-fired plant, according to testimony filed with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Friday. Experts testifying on behalf of the Izaak Walton League of America’s Midwest Office, Fresh Energy, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Union of Concerned Scientists said the Big Stone power plant would release enormous amounts of global warming pollution. The plant would emit large amounts of mercury, too, experts said. Wind turbines produce no emissions. “This is just a bad idea,’’ said Jim Madsen, of the Kempeska Chapter of the Izaak Walton League in Watertown. “It’s bad for our hunters and fishers, it’s bad for the environment and it’s not very good for our economy.’’ It would take 1,320 megawatts of wind power in South Dakota to equal the power from the proposed Big Stone 600 megawatt plant. Marshall Goldberg, a resource planner with MRG & Associates, Inc., calculated that the wind farms would create 483 new long-term jobs in South Dakota, more than seven times the 64 long-term jobs created from the Big Stone project. Goldberg testified
that wind turbines would create nearly $16 million in wages and
$35 million in economic activity in South Dakota each year. The
coal plant would contribute only $6.8 million annually to the
state’s economy, according to Big Stone’s estimates. The Big Stone generating plant also would send more than 4.5 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, said Dr. Ezra Hausman, an atmospheric scientist. Carbon dioxide is the primary heat-trapping gas contributing to global warming. To put that into context, the 4.5 million tons would represent a 34 percent increase over the 13.2 million tons the entire state of South Dakota produces annually. It would produce more global warming pollution than all the cars in the state, Hausman said. “My opinion is that the emissions of over 4.5 million tons of CO2 per year from this proposed facility would cause irreversible damage to the environment, especially considering its expected lifetime of 50 years or more and the slow recovery time for atmospheric CO2,’’ Hausman said. For South Dakota residents, the continued heating of the earth’s surface will mean warmer temperatures in summer and winter, less soil moisture and a large percentage of the prairie wetlands will shrink or disappear, with the likely decline of ducks and other waterfowl, Hausman said. The coal-fired plant is likely to be more expensive for ratepayers than wind alternatives. That’s because Big Stone’s owners failed to calculate the cost of new federal regulations designed to cut carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Many businesses, including utilities, are convinced those regulations are coming in the next five to 10 years. New regulations would cost Big Stone millions of dollars to comply, making construction of wind and natural gas power plants much cheaper to build, the experts said. Public Utility staff testified that the current Big Stone plant and the proposed new plant would together exceed the future state budget on the amount of toxic mercury that would spew from the smokestacks. The project never considered the possible contamination of fish by the mercury but “further contamination of local fish with mercury is a concern,’’ the staff report concludes.- end - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fresh Energy—formerly Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ME3)—is a nonprofit organization leading the transition to a clean energy system. One that supports the health of our economies, our people, and our environment while moving us toward energy independence. www.fresh-energy.org |